1. shopping
2. auctions

Policy by Public Procurement:
Opportunities and Pitfalls
Elon Strömbäck
Akademisk avhandling
som med vederbörligt tillstånd av Rektor vid Umeå universitet för
avläggande av filosofie doktorsexamen framläggs till offentligt försvar i
Hörsal C, Samhällsvetarhuset,
fredagen den 25 september, kl. 13:00.
Avhandlingen kommer att försvaras på engelska.
Fakultetsopponent: Docent, Carine Staropoli,
Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne, Paris School of Economics, Paris,
Frankrike.
Umeå School of Business and Economics
Umeå University
Umeå 2015
Organization
Document type
Umeå University
Doctoral thesis
Umeå School of Business and Economics
Date of publication
4 September 2015
Author
Elon Strömbäck
Title
Policy by Public Procurement: Opportunities and Pitfalls
Abstract
In Paper [I], we theoretically assess green public procurement (GPP) as an environmental policy
instrument and its ability to lead to the achievement of environmental objectives. Central to our
analysis is the extent to which polluting firms choose to adapt to the public sector’s environmental
requirements and to invest in greener technologies. Our main finding is that the potential of GPP to
function as an objective-effective instrument of environmental policy is limited and can actually be
counterproductive. From an environmental policy point of view, it is crucial that GPP aims for
environmental standards beyond just the technology of the polluting firms and that it is designed
with reference to defined environmental objectives.
In Paper [II], we use data on Swedish public procurement auctions for internal regular cleaning
service contracts to provide novel empirical evidence regarding GPP and its effect on the potential
suppliers’ decision to submit a bid and their probability of being qualified for supplier selection. We
find only a weak effect on supplier behavior, and this suggests that GPP, as used in practice, does
not live up to its political expectations. However, several environmental criteria appear to be
associated with increased complexity, as indicated by the reduced probability of a bid being
qualified in the post-qualification process. As such, GPP appears to have limited or no potential to
function as an environmental policy instrument.
In Paper [III], I examine how GPP is organized in Sweden and how the potential suppliers
respond to varying buyer market shares using data on Swedish public procurement auctions for
internal regular cleaning service contracts. The level of GPP stringency is found to vary
systematically across authority types, buyer market share, and political coalition in the relevant
council or in Parliament. The results also indicate quite a substantial dispersion in GPP stringency,
suggesting a low degree of coordination among contracting authorities when implementing the
policy. After controlling for GPP stringency and other covariates, increased buyer market share is
associated with a significant increase in the probability of potential suppliers submitting a bid.
The European Commission encourages public authorities to split procurement contracts into
multiple contracts in order to increase the competiveness of small and medium sized enterprises
(SMEs). In Paper [IV], I use data from Swedish public procurement auctions for internal regular
cleaning service contracts to study the effect of contract size and number of contracts on SME
participation and probability of winning. The results indicate that SME participation is negatively
related to both contract size and the number of contracts in the procurement. A possible
interpretation is that reduced contract size in order to stimulate SME participation is counteracted
by reduced incentives for them to enter into procurements with multiple contracts. Medium-sized
firms are also more successful when bidding for smaller contracts relative to large firms.
Nevertheless, the results indicate that the award rate for SMEs is positively correlated with the
number of contracts in the procurement.
Keywords
Public Procurement Auction, Environmental Policy, Regulation, Sustainability, Competition,
Compliance Cost, Endogenous Entry, Supplier Incentives, Buyer Market Share, Split Award, Small
and Medium Sized Enterprises
Language
English
ISBN
978-91-7601-281-9
ISSN
0348-1018
Number of pages
25 + 4 papers
Policy by Public Procurement: Opportunities and
Pitfalls
Elon Strömbäck
Department of Economics
Umeå School of Business and Economics
Umeå University, Umeå 2015
Copyright © Elon Strömbäck
Umeå Economic Studies No. 915
ISBN: 978-91-7601-281-9
ISSN: 0348-1018
Cover Photo: © Malin Mattsson
Electronic version available at http://umu.diva-portal.org/
Printed by: Print & Media at Umeå University
Umeå, Sweden 2015
Till min familj
Abstract
This thesis consists of an introductory part and four self-contained papers all related to public policy
by means of public procurement auctions.
In Paper [I], we theoretically assess green public procurement (GPP) as an environmental policy
instrument and its ability to lead to the achievement of environmental objectives. Central to our
analysis is the extent to which polluting firms choose to adapt to the public sector’s environmental
requirements and to invest in greener technologies. Our main finding is that the potential of GPP to
function as an objective-effective instrument of environmental policy is limited and can actually be
counterproductive. From an environmental policy point of view, it is crucial that GPP aims for
environmental standards beyond just the technology of the polluting firms and that it is designed with
reference to defined environmental objectives.
In Paper [II], we use data on Swedish public procurement auctions for internal regular cleaning
service contracts to provide novel empirical evidence regarding GPP and its effect on the potential
suppliers’ decision to submit a bid and their probability of being qualified for supplier selection. We
find only a weak effect on supplier behavior, and this suggests that GPP, as used in practice, does not
live up to its political expectations. However, several environmental criteria appear to be associated
with increased complexity, as indicated by the reduced probability of a bid being qualified in the postqualification process. As such, GPP appears to have limited or no potential to function as an
environmental policy instrument.
In Paper [III], I examine how GPP is organized in Sweden and how the potential suppliers respond to
varying buyer market shares using data on Swedish public procurement auctions for internal regular
cleaning service contracts. The level of GPP stringency is found to vary systematically across
authority types, buyer market share, and political coalition in the relevant council or in Parliament.
The results also indicate quite a substantial dispersion in GPP stringency, suggesting a low degree of
coordination among contracting authorities when implementing the policy. After controlling for GPP
stringency and other covariates, increased buyer market share is associated with a significant increase
in the probability of potential suppliers submitting a bid.
The European Commission encourages public authorities to split procurement contracts into multiple
contracts in order to increase the competiveness of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). In
Paper [IV], I use data from Swedish public procurement auctions for internal regular cleaning service
contracts to study the effect of contract size and number of contracts on SME participation and
probability of winning. The results indicate that SME participation is negatively related to both
contract size and the number of contracts in the procurement. A possible interpretation is that reduced
contract size in order to stimulate SME participation is counteracted by reduced incentives for them to
enter into procurements with multiple contracts. Medium-sized firms are also more successful when
bidding for smaller contracts relative to large firms. Nevertheless, the results indicate that the award
rate for SMEs is positively correlated with the number of contracts in the procurement.
Keywords: Public Procurement Auction, Environmental Policy, Regulation, Sustainability,
Competition, Compliance Cost, Endogenous Entry, Supplier Incentives, Buyer Market Share, Split
Award, Small and Medium Sized Enterprises
Acknowledgments
With this acknowledgment, I conclude yet another chapter in my life. During the last couple of
years, I have been challenged in many ways. At times I have felt ample frustration and doubts about
the “impossible” research topic called public procurement, and I am afraid that I have not entirely
managed to hide my concerns from my family and friends. Therefore, I would like to begin by giving
my honest thanks to my mum, dad, and the rest of my beloved family – Karin, Roger, Björn, Sara,
Ylva, Pontus, Jakob, and Simon – for giving me unconditional love and support over the years. There
are also many colleagues that deserve being mentioned. I would like to start by giving special thanks
to my co-authors, Sofia Lundberg, Per-Olov Marklund, and David Sundström. Sofia, as my dedicated
supervisor you have given me a lot of responsibility and support from day one. I am grateful that you
have been pushing me through my studies and so generously sharing your deep knowledge of the
policy-making process within the EU and Sweden. Per-Olov, success follows the incurable optimist
and this is indeed the case with you. David, you have been a great companion in conferences, summer
schools, and in the tedious process of collecting data. You also share my interest in auction theory and
empirical methods. I also want to send thanks to my co-supervisor, Magnus Wikström. Your highly
developed intuition is beyond most, and your thoughtful comments have contributed immensely to
improving my papers and, in some cases, rejecting not so promising research ideas.
I also want to give thanks to Tommy Lundgren, Tomas Raattamaa, David Granlund, David
Sundström, Emma Zetterdahl, Mats Bergman, Johan Lundberg, Anders Lunander, Gauthier Lanot,
Katharina Jenderny, Johan Stake, and others who have read and discussed earlier versions of my
papers. I furthermore owe gratitude to Kenneth Backlund and the rest of my colleagues at the
department for making such a good first impression that I was convinced to follow a career path in
economics. I also want to credit Erik Brändt, Angelo Skog, and the rest of the crew at the Swedish
Competition Authority for motivating me to apply for my doctoral studies. Special thanks to all former
and current PhD students for the many good times together: Alejandro, Amin, Anders, André, Catia,
Christian, David, Elena, Erik, Emma, Golnaz, Katarina, Mathilda, Matte, Morgan, Shanshan, Sofia,
Stephanie, Tharshini, Ulf, Tomas, and Yuna.
There is also a life outside academia. I am blessed with having many friends around me who
deserve being mentioned. Thank you Pelle and Rickard for the many great times together in Umeå,
Lofoten, Lisbon, and elsewhere. Thanks to Jurate and Andrius for the many great dinners and the epic
hike in Sarek. Thanks also to my neighbors, Malin and Johan, for such great company and for so
deliberately sharing your best mushroom hideouts. Thank you Juan for being such a good friend.
David and Matte, I have really enjoyed hanging out either by foot, cycle, or skis in Umeå and the
mountains. Thank you, Anna and Thomas, for sharing great outdoor experiences in Sweden and along
Route 1.
Many thanks to Emma for sharing this interesting period in my life. Thank you morfar for being
such a role model. You have showed others and me what lifelong learning is about. Thanks to farmor
who has had a lot of faith in whatever her oldest grandchild is doing. Thank you mormor. Even though
you are not with us anymore, your spirit is passed along. I am grateful for what life has given me so
far.
Elon
Umeå, April 2015
This thesis consists of a summary and the following self-contained papers:
[I]
Lundberg, S., Marklund, P-O., & Strömbäck, E. (2014). Is Environmental Policy by
Public
Procurement
Effective?
Public Finance Review, 1-22,
DOI:
10.1177/1091142115588977. (Reprinted with permission).
[II]
Lundberg, S., Marklund, P-O., Strömbäck, E., & Sundström, D. (2015). Using public
procurement to implement environmental policy: an empirical analysis. Environmental
Economics and Policy Studies, 1-34, DOI: 10.1007/s10018-015-0102-9. (Reprinted
with permission).
[III]
Strömbäck, E. (2015). The Role of Buyer Power in Public Procurement Auctions: An
Empirical Analysis. Umeå Economic Studies, No. 913.
[IV]
Strömbäck, E. (2015). Contract Size and Small Firm Competition in Public
Procurement. Umeå Economic Studies, No. 914.
1.
Introduction
This thesis consists of four self-contained papers that evaluate public procurement as an instrument
of environmental policy and for providing business opportunities for small and medium sized
enterprises (SMEs). In particular, I study the potential of green public procurement (GPP) to achieve
reduced environmental damage by creating incentives for brown suppliers to invest in becoming more
environmentally friendly. In addition, I study the effect of procurement design on SME participation
and the probability of being awarded the contract.
A public authority can either choose to provide a publicly funded welfare service through in-house
production or through entering into a contract with a private supplier (McGuire et al., 1987;
Christoffersen et al., 2007). The latter production mode is typically preceded by a formalized
procurement procedure in which potential suppliers are invited to compete for the public contract
through a letting process.
The letting procedure within the EU is generally carried out by means of a descending bid auction
in which potential bidders are invited to enter a sealed bid in accordance with the specification in a socalled call for tender. The publicly advertised call for tender includes a detailed specification of
mandatory criteria to be fulfilled by the bidders, contractual terms, and the supplier selection method
(see, e.g. Bergman and Lundberg, 2013). Potential bidders respond to the call for tender by choosing
whether or not to submit a bid. A bid for a given call for tender comprises a set of documents detailing
how the criteria in the specification are to be fulfilled along with a price bid.
After the letting date falls due, the contracting authority evaluates all received bids according to the
criteria specified in the call for tender. Only bids that meet each mandatory criterion are qualified for
supplier selection on the basis of either the lowest price or the most economically advantageous tender
(MEAT).1 The designated winner of each contract typically receives a fixed price throughout the
contract period in accordance with their price bid.
In addition to serving as a mechanism to allocate resources among a group of bidders, public
procurement is quite often seen as a means for achieving political objectives. For example, public
procurement has been used in the US to address social issues such as labor standards, unemployment,
employment opportunities for disabled workers, racial equality, affirmative action programs, and setasides for businesses owned by minorities (McCrudden, 2004). Similarly, public procurement has also
been used to promote domestic firms (McAfee and McMillan, 1989) and disadvantaged groups of
firms (Krasnokutskaya and Seim, 2011).
In more recent times there has been a rapid increase in the use of GPP, in which the public sector
stipulates environmental criteria in addition to price and other quality attributes when contracts are
allocated to private suppliers. The environmental criteria may specifically refer to emission targets or
1
MEAT implies that all qualified bids are ranked according to a multidimensional scoring rule including price
and other quality attributes (Asker and Cantillon, 2008; 2010; Bergman and Lundberg, 2013; Hyytinen et al.,
2015).
1
to certain aspects of the supplier’s production technology (Lundberg and Marklund, 2011). In
particular, the European Union (EU) and its member states are very clear in their ambitions to use GPP
as an environmental policy instrument (European Commission, 2008b; Tukker et al., 2008), and
similar initiatives can be found, for example, in the US (Environmental Protection Agency, 1990,
1991; McCrudden, 2004; Fischer, 2010) and China (Geng and Doberstein, 2008; Qiao and Wang,
2011). The heart of the arguments for using public procurement as a policy instrument is that the
public sector should use its buyer power to influence, or “pull”, industries in directions that are
perceived as beneficial for society and as such contribute to local, regional, national, and international
sustainability goals (European Commission, 2011a; Marron, 2003; Edler and Georghiou, 2007;
Albano and Sparro, 2010). Indeed, public procurement amounts to a significant part of the economy in
many parts of the world. In the EU, public sector purchases of goods, works, and services through
competitive tendering are estimated to account for 16% of the EU’s GDP (European Commission,
2008b).
Other procurement policies currently in use aim towards increased participation and more contracts
being awarded to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Textbook examples of how to design a
procurement auction to encourage entry from disadvantaged potential bidders include bid preference
programs, set-asides, and the practice of splitting the procurement into multiple contracts, which is
referred to as a split award (Milgrom, 2004). A bid preference program can involve giving
disadvantaged bidders a price preference in the supplier selection process (see e.g. McAfee and
McMillan, 1989; Marion, 2007; Krasnokutskaya and Seim, 2011). A set-aside policy is implemented
by setting aside a fraction of contracts for targeted firms, and a bidder is typically not eligible to win
more than one contract (Milgrom, 2004; De Silva et al., 2012). The European Commission encourages
the contracting authorities to use split awards to increase SMEs’ participation in the auction and their
chances of winning (European Commission, 2011b; 2012).
Despite the frequent use of public procurement to achieve environmental and distributional
objectives in society, the mechanisms for how such an effect may be achieved are still poorly
understood. This thesis focuses on the ability of public procurement to achieve environmental
objectives and to create business opportunities for SMEs.
By examining GPP’s ability to incentivize potential suppliers to invest in less environmentally
damaging technology and to submit a bid, this thesis contributes with theoretical predictions of the
policy’s potential to achieve environmental objectives. This thesis also provides novel empirical
evidence on the topic by using self-contained data on Swedish public procurement auctions for
internal regular cleaning service contracts. Additional information about the contracting authorities,
potential bidders, and regional markets was retrieved from Statistics Sweden. The unique and very
detailed data enabled us to carry out detailed and comprehensive studies on the potential supplier’s
response to public procurement as a policy instrument.
2
GPP’s potential to achieve reduced environmental damage by creating incentives for brown
suppliers to adapt to environmental criteria is studied theoretically in Paper [I]. Our main finding is
that the potential of GPP to function as an objective-effective instrument of environmental policy is
limited and can actually be counterproductive. In Paper [II] we empirically examine the effect of
different environmental criteria or standards on the potential bidder’s entry decision and qualification
into public procurement auctions. We find at best a weak effect on the supplier’s behavior suggesting
that the use of GPP does not live up to its political expectations in this context. Nevertheless,
environmental standards are associated with increased complexity as indicated by the reduced
probability of a qualified bid. In Paper [III], I present empirical evidence on the role of buyer power in
public procurement auctions by examining how GPP is organized in Sweden and how the potential
bidders’ entry decision is affected by varying buyer market shares. The results indicate that
implementation of GPP is uncoordinated across different public authorities. In addition, increased
buyer market share is shown to increase the incentives for potential bidders to enter into the auction.
Paper [IV] empirically studies the effect of splitting the procurement into multiple contracts of limited
scope with the purpose of stimulating SME participation and the likelihood of their winning the
contract. The results indicate that contract size and the number of contracts are important determinants
for SMEs’ probability of entry and of winning the contract.
2.
Using public procurement auctions as an environmental policy
instrument
There is widespread concern about the current state of the environment and the limited success of
existing policies to prevent environmental degradation. Although GPP appears to be a well-established
environmental policy instrument, it is not well studied in the academic literature and, as pointed out by
Testa et al. (2012), it is still a relatively new area of research. Empirical studies on the topic have
sought to identify determinants for the various contracting authorities’ use of GPP criteria, often
referred to as GPP uptake (see, for example, Walker and Brammer, 2009; Palmujoki et al., 2010; Testa
et al., 2012). Information campaigns, e-procurement, communication with suppliers, and education of
civil servants are typically indicated in these studies to be associated with increased probability of
using environmental criteria in the call for tender.
Several studies have also described national GPP initiatives (e.g., Swanson, 2005; Bolton, 2005;
Geng and Doberstein, 2008; Ho et al., 2010; Arvidsson and Stage, 2012) or provided guidelines (e.g.,
Parrika-Alhola, 2008; Tarantini et al., 2011), but none of these studies have provided a theoretical or
empirical understanding of how GPP works as an environmental policy instrument.
A related branch of the literature has focused on GPP’s potential to foster innovation. Procurement
decisions are made by numerous distinct authorities – including municipalities, county councils, public
enterprises, and central governments. Several studies have discussed the decentralized structure of
GPP and actions that may increase the potential suppliers’ incentives to invest in greener technology
3
(see, for instance, Marron, 2003; Edler and Georghiou, 2007; Albano and Sparro, 2010). The public
sector’s buyer power is argued to be an important factor for industry innovation and can either stem
from the sheer size of a single purchase or from coordinated actions across several contracting
authorities. There is, however, a lack of empirical research that has studied the organization of GPP
and the potential suppliers’ response to varying buyer market shares.
3.
Evaluation of environmental policy instruments
From a welfare economic point of view, the environmental degradation due to excessive pollution
or overexploitation of natural resources is the consequence of a market failure. That is, the
environmental damage associated with production or consumption is not properly reflected in the
market price of the product (see, for instance, Baumol and Oates, 1988).
The wide array of existing policy instruments to regulate such failures can broadly be categorized
into command-and-control or economic instruments (Hanley et al., 2007). From an environmental
policy point of view, it is crucial that the preferred instrument aims for an environmental standard
beyond just the technology of the polluting firms and that it is designed with reference to defined
environmental objectives. A socially optimal level of abatement is translated in command-and-control
instruments into uniform quotas or performance standards for the production technology. Economic
policy instruments, on the other hand, are commonly referred to as being market based. By adding in
the cost of the environmental damage, the polluting market participants are encouraged to take the
externalities associated with production into account, resulting in reduced emission levels. Examples
of such economic policy instruments are emission taxes, subsidies of abatement technology, and
tradable permits (Tietenberg, 1990).
A given policy instrument can, among other things, be judged on the basis of cost-effectiveness and
objective-effectiveness (see e.g., Hanley et al., 2007). Cost-effectiveness refers to the extent to which a
given abatement target is achieved at the lowest possible cost to society. Common to command-andcontrol instruments such as the uniform performance standard is that they are inflexible and thus not a
cost-effective means for achieving the abatement target whenever the marginal abatement cost differs
among the market participants. This is often the case when the market participants are heterogeneous
in their production technology. Economic instruments, on the other hand, rely on the market
mechanism to allocate the abatement target among the participants in the market. The price signal
renders a cost-effective outcome given that the market participants choose their profit-maximizing
level of abatement.
In thinking about the functioning of GPP, the use of uniform mandatory criteria in terms of
performance standards to be fulfilled by the potential suppliers means that the policy shares common
traits with command-and-control instruments. Along that line, Lundberg and Marklund (2013) argue
that GPP is not a cost-effective environmental policy instrument when the brown potential suppliers
4
are heterogeneous in their environmental performance prior to the procurement auction. This argument
follows from the EU procurement directives of non-discrimination and equal treatment, which prevent
the contracting authorities from customizing the environmental criteria in accordance with supplierspecific marginal abatement costs. A cost-ineffective policy instrument, however, can still be the
preferred policy instrument if it has a real impact on the environment, which in turn is related to
objective-effectiveness.
Objective-effectiveness refers to the potential of an environmental policy to actually achieve the
objectives it aims for. By taking into account the market reactions from private consumers and
producers, Marron (1997) touched upon GPP and objective-effectiveness when the public sector
changes from buying conventionally produced products to greener, less polluting, off-the-shelf
products. A procurement policy that changes the composition of public sector purchasing may lead to
private consumers changing their purchases in response, and this could result in increased emissions
from private consumption. For example, in the standard case of upward sloping supply curves, GPP
results in a price increase of the green product that, all else being equal, will induce a counteracting
effect from private consumers. The policy is predicted to be more successful at reducing
environmental impact in procurement sectors where i) the public sector has a large market share in
both the brown and the green market, ii) the supply is elastic in both markets, and iii) the private
demand is inelastic in both markets.
A crucial feature of GPP is the option for the brown potential suppliers to make the necessary
adaptions of their production technology and enter into the bidding process. However, complying with
the mandatory criteria, learning the cost of fulfilling the contract, and preparing the necessary bid
documents is a costly activity for potential bidders, and the payoff is uncertain (Samuelson, 1985;
Levin and Smith, 1994; Krasnokutskaya and Seim, 2011). The potential bidders can avoid the
adjustment cost by simply refraining from participating in the procurement auction and instead
competing for the residual demand in the market not covered by the environmental standard specified
in the call for tender. The entry decision makes GPP potentially weaker than taxes, tradable permits,
subsidies, and industry standards, although any form of environmental regulation can lead to entry
barriers (see, e.g., Heyes, 2009 for a survey).
4.
Disadvantaged potential bidders in public procurement
There is a vast body of literature within the field of auction theory seeking to establish the effect of
different procurement auction policies on participation and bidding. For instance, the discriminatory
policies of bid preference programs and set-asides are commonly used for the purpose of creating
business opportunities for disadvantaged firms. A disadvantaged firm is less cost-efficient at fulfilling
the contract, and a discriminatory policy may in such circumstances level the playing field across firm
5
categories. Increased competitiveness of the disadvantaged firms is expected to increase their
participation and their probability of being awarded a contract.
Empirical evidence from auction data suggests that the discriminatory policies of bid preference
programs and set-asides can shift contract awards to the favored category of, for example, small firms
at little or no cost to the contracting authority (see e.g. Marion, 2007; Krasnokutskaya and Seim, 2011;
De Silva et al., 2012). Nevertheless, no previous studies have, to my knowledge, empirically assessed
the importance of contract size and the nondiscriminatory practice within the EU of splitting the
procurement into multiple contracts with the purpose of creating business opportunities for SMEs.
When evaluating GPP’s ability to transform industry and the ability of procurement design to
induce SME participation and contract award, it is important to take into account the potential
supplier’s entry decision. The next section discusses the entry decision of the potential bidders in more
detail.
5.
Endogenous entry in procurement auctions
Public procurement has received significant attention within the auction-theory literature, starting
with the seminal papers by Vickrey (1961) and Harsanyi (1967). In the independent private value
paradigm, a bidder i is assumed to know their own (private) cost parameter, 𝑐! , for the contract but
only the distribution 𝐹(𝑐) on the support [𝑐, 𝑐] from which its N-1 potential competitors’ costs are
drawn.2 In the Bayesian Nash equilibrium, a bidder with a given private cost parameter chooses an
optimal price bid, 𝑏! = 𝑏(𝑐! ), such that the expected profit in the auction is maximized. Early models
of auctions and bidding were static in the sense that they did not consider entry, and comparative
statics from these models predicted that the bid-cost margin is strictly decreasing along with the
number of potential bidders.
With non-negative entry costs and endogenous entry, this no longer needs to be the case. Novel
models of entry include those of Samuelson (1985) and Levin and Smith (1994). In both models, entry
is assumed to be costly due to the process of learning the private cost parameter associated with
carrying out the contract and the cost of preparing the necessary bid documents. The two models of
entry differ only in the timing of when the information about the bidder’s private cost parameter is
known, which has consequences for the subsequent screening of potential bidders.
When the private cost parameter, 𝑐! , is assumed to be known prior to the entry decision, bidders are
modeled to adopt a pure strategy (Samuelson, 1985). In the pure strategy equilibrium, exactly 𝑛
bidders enter the procurement auction and 𝑁 − 𝑛 stay out. This implies that the typical firm will not
2
Other informational assumptions about the firms’ cost parameter are that the cost is the same for all firms, but
is unknown at the time of bidding, or that the cost is affiliated (see, e.g., Menezes and Monteiro, 2005). The
assumption of common cost, or values, is usually applicable to oil-lease auctions and auctions for snow removal
contracts (see, e.g., Kagel and Levin, 1986). Affiliated costs, or values, imply that the cost parameter is
positively correlated across bidders (Li et al., 2002). This informational structure may be motivated when there is
a secondary market for the auctioned object.
6
participate if the firm’s cost is above some cut-off cost, 𝑐 ∈ (𝑐 ∗ , 𝑐]. A firm with a private cost equal to
the cut-off cost 𝑐 ∗ is indifferent to participating with a bid of 𝑏 ∗ or staying out of the procurement
auction. Expressed more formally, the expected net profit from bidding for a firm with a private cost
𝑐 ∗ is
𝐸(𝜋) = 𝑏 ∗ − 𝑐 ∗ 1 − 𝐹 𝑐 ∗
!!!
− 𝑘 = 0,
where 𝑏 ∗ − 𝑐 ∗ is the bid-cost margin, 1 − 𝐹 𝑐 ∗
(1)
!!!
denotes the probability that the firm with cut-
off cost 𝑐 ∗ is the only competing bidder, and k is the non-negative entry cost.
The equilibrium threshold cost 𝑐 ∗ serves as a self-regulating mechanism that screens for low-cost
bidders. Thus the pure strategy equilibrium produces a truncation of the cost distribution to the left, i.e.
high-cost firms do not undertake wasteful entry costs due to the low likelihood of them being awarded
the contract. Equation (1) summarizes the equilibrium entry condition and leads to the following
comparative static result: all else being equal, 𝑐 ∗ , and therefore 𝐹 𝑐 ∗ , are decreasing in the entry cost,
𝑘. Consequently, the typical firm enters less frequently as the entry cost increases (Samuelson, 1985;
Li and Zheng, 2009).
In the context of GPP, the entry cost can take into account supplier-specific compliance costs of
having to adjust to stringent environmental criteria, less any profits from selling the green products to
the private market. This is likely to limit the environmental policy’s potential to target firms with poor
environmental performance and high adjustment cost, as is discussed in Paper [I] and tested
empirically in Paper [II]. Furthermore, Paper [III] contributes to the previous literature on endogenous
entry into procurement auctions by assessing the effect of buyer market share on the potential
supplier’s incentives to enter into the bidding process (see, for instance, Jofre-Bonet and Pesendorfer,
2000; 2003; Li and Zheng, 2009; Krasnokutskaya and Seim, 2011). Paper [IV] tests for heterogeneity
in expected profitability across firm size categories related to contract size and number of contracts.
6.
Summary of the papers
Paper [I]: Is environmental policy by public procurement effective?
Objective-effectiveness refers to an environmental policy’s potential to actually achieve the
objectives it aims for (Hanley et al., 2007). In Paper [I], we expand on Marron’s (1997) work by
analyzing to what extent GPP results in effective reduction of emissions by asking the brown (or
conventional) suppliers to comply with stringent environmental criteria and submit a bid for public
contracts. Marron’s (1997) model can be described as a substitution policy where the public sector
switches from buying a conventionally produced product to a less-polluting off-the-shelf product. The
net effect on total emissions will likely not be one to one due to the private market response to changes
in relative prices. In fact, private consumers of the green product will tend to respond to the
substitution policy by switching to the conventionally produced product. The policy is predicted to be
7
more successful at reducing environmental impact in sectors where i) the public sector has a large
market share in both markets, ii) the supply is elastic in both markets, and iii) the private demand is
inelastic in both markets.
Market supply of conventional and green products is, in Marron’s (1997) paper, assumed to be
fixed, and the model does not take into account the procurement process of competitive tendering for
public contracts. We therefore introduce a transformation policy where the public sector strives to
exert direct control or influence over potential suppliers’ investments in greener production processes
and/or products by the means of a GPP policy that aims for a pre-specified environmental objective.
This could be a situation in which the producer of a conventional product invests in new production
processes and starts to produce for the green product market instead. We also include a comparison of
the substitution and transformation policy and what policy is better from a resource allocation
perspective. In addition to this, our theoretical findings are illustrated with an empirical example.
Specifically, the Swedish government has proposed a target that 20% of the arable land in Sweden be
certified for organic agriculture, and the public sector’s purchase of food is officially seen as a means
to achieve this objective. The ambition is that 25% of the food purchased should be organically grown.
This requires the public sector to re-distribute its’ food basket and to substitute conventional for
organically grown and produced food.
Our overall conclusion is that the potential for GPP to function as an objective-effective instrument
of environmental policy is limited. Even though the transformation policy in comparison with the
substitution policy drives the prices in the politically desirable direction, both policies have the same
outcome in terms of production and emissions. In fact, the transformation policy can, just like Marron
(1997) predicted for the substitution policy, have a counteracting effect on total emissions.
A transformation policy is not an objective-effective policy instrument due to the potential
suppliers self-selecting for the GPP. More specifically, the cost for a conventional supplier to adjust its
production technology to environmental criteria can be folded into the entry cost, k, in Equation (1).
The increased entry cost will, all else being equal, result in reduced participation. Hence, the entry
mechanism inherent to GPP does not provide incentives for the worst-performing potential suppliers
to adjust their production technology to stringent GPP criteria and to enter into the auction. Therefore,
the transformation policy’s ability to achieve a given environmental objective is most likely weaker
than more traditional policy instruments. The political argumentation in favor of GPP policy is thus
not consistent with how the market reacts to it.
8
Paper [II]: Using public procurement to implement environmental policy: an empirical analysis
In Paper [II] we provide novel empirical evidence regarding GPP and its effect on a potential
supplier’s decision to submit a bid, the degree of competition, and the likelihood of a bid being
qualified. In particular, we study how potential heterogeneity in the probability of entry and
qualification is related to firm size.
The data were extracted from Swedish authorities’ procurements of internal regular cleaning
services from the years 2009 and 2010. For the 337 procurements, we have information about the type
of authority, the procurement design, the object or facility to be cleaned, contract and local market
characteristics, all submitted bids, and whether or not a bid met all of the mandatory qualification
criteria. The data also provide rich descriptions of the environmental criteria that are stipulated in each
of the procurements. In total, we can identify 28 different environmental criteria. Because several of
them are simply different ways of describing the same environmental dimension, the criteria are sorted
into six different green categories. The data also describe the environmental dimension that the criteria
aim to influence, such as environmental management systems, vehicles, and the use of chemicals, as
well as other quality demands within the procurement.
To assess the market reaction to GPP policies, it is essential to explore the firm-level decision to
participate in the GPP process – as well as the aggregate number of bidders – and to relate this to
procurements (contracts) with various environmental criteria. The cost to adapt to environmental
criteria may differ among the potential suppliers depending on whether they have already made
environmental investments or not, i.e., there may be systematic a priori cost asymmetries in adapting
to the criteria. GPP policies may, therefore, give “greener” suppliers competitive advantages that
induce them to participate to a greater extent. Consequently, the expected net profit in Equation (1) of
entering the procurement auction will vary across potential suppliers. A potential supplier will submit
a bid when the underlying continuous expected net profit function is non-negative. The underlying
expected net profit in Equation (1) is not directly observed, but the binary outcome variable to
participate in the auction is observed. Hence, the participation decision is assumed to be a function of
supplier-specific characteristics, contract characteristics, and procurement characteristics.
From an environmental policy point of view, it is important that the contracting authority specifies
transparent and adequate environmental criteria according to some predetermined environmental
objective. The misunderstanding of criteria by potential suppliers is associated with a risk of them
deciding not to submit a bid or of them undertaking non-optimal green investments, and this potential
problem is the motivation for analyzing the relationship between the GPP design and the qualification
process. Specifically, the probability of a bid becoming qualified in the post-qualification process
serves as a proxy for the complexity of the procurement (Wan and Beil, 2009). The selection rule is
assumed to be a function of supplier-specific characteristics, contract characteristics, and procurement
characteristics.
9
Our main findings are that the design of GPP, i.e., the different categories of environmental criteria,
has only limited impact on the suppliers’ decisions to participate in the process and on the aggregate
number of bids. There is also no evidence of systematic self-selection into procurements of different
categories of environmental criteria related to firm size. As such, GPP appears to have limited or no
potential to function as an environmental policy instrument in this context.
The qualification process reveals that GPP is associated with increased complexity as indicated by
the reduced probability of a bid becoming qualified, particularly when environmental management
systems or regulation of chemical use are the criteria. Therefore, we find no general support for the
political expectations of GPP to be an environmental policy instrument.
Paper [III]: The role of buyer power in public procurement auctions: an empirical analysis
Advocates of public policy by means of GPP argue that the public sector can use its buyer power to
incentivize industries into becoming less environmentally damaging. In Paper [III], I examine how
GPP is organized in Sweden and the potential suppliers’ response to varying buyer market shares
using data on Swedish public procurement auctions for internal regular cleaning services.
In the European Union, public procurement of goods, works, and services are estimated to account
for 16% of the GDP (European Commission, 2008b). It must be emphasized, however, that this crude
estimate of buyer market share aggregates procurement decisions made by numerous distinct
authorities – including municipalities, county councils, public enterprises, and central governments –
over several product and service categories. Hence, full utilization of the public authorities’ buyer
power potential in a given sector may require demand coordination, either implicitly through a low
degree of heterogeneity in buyer preferences or explicitly through standardization across different
contracting authorities (Marron, 2003; Edler and Georghiou, 2007; Albano and Sparro, 2010).
This, of course, limits the scope for a flexible GPP design in accordance with the structure of the
relevant market or the contracting authority’s idiosyncratic preferences and their valuation of local
externalities in production (Marron, 2003; Albano and Sparro, 2010). Hence, there is a potential
tradeoff between market power through coordinated demand on the one hand and flexibility on the
other.
This paper uses field data on 725 internal regular cleaning contracts awarded by 176 distinct
Swedish contracting authorities to study the implementation of GPP across the various contracting
authorities and the effect of buyer market share on the potential supplier’s incentives to enter the
bidding process. Internal regular cleaning contracts make a good testing ground because these are
highly homogenous services that are both produced and consumed locally and because they are a basic
necessity in both the public employment sector and the private employment sector. These
characteristics are utilized when constructing the proxy variable of buyer market share, which is
defined as the share of the workforce in the regional market being employed by the public authority. In
addition, a simple index of GPP stringency is constructed by aggregating the 28 unique environmental
10
criteria in the data into a single index (see, for instance, De Silva et al., 2009; 2012). The index of GPP
stringency is used for exploring possible systematic differences in the organization of GPP across
contracting authorities and regional markets with different buyer compositions.
Among the results, a count regression with GPP stringency on buyer market share and other
observable buyer characteristics indicates heterogeneity in the level of GPP stringency related to
authority type and buyer characteristics. Specifically, a high level of GPP stringency is used more
often in regional Swedish markets where the contracting authority type has a large buyer market share
and when the Swedish Green Party holds the balance of power in the relevant council of the
contracting authority or in the Swedish Parliament.
Uncoordinated implementation of GPP among contracting authorities makes it possible for
potential suppliers to substitute public and private contracts with less stringent GPP criteria. This may
weaken the ability of policy makers to provide the potential suppliers with real incentives to comply
with the GPP criteria. Results from a cross-sectional analysis of GPP dispersion as a function of public
buyer composition suggest that the organization of GPP is less dispersed (i.e. there is a higher degree
of demand coordination) in more concentrated markets in terms of authority types.
Consistent with theoretical predictions, logit estimates suggest a positive significant direct effect
from increased buyer market share on the probability of potential suppliers submitting a bid. The
effect persists even after taking into account the indirect effect of buyer market share mediated by GPP
stringency. The result thus supports the arguments that buyer market share is an important determinant
for the ability of the purchasing policy to contribute to reduced emissions.
Paper [IV]: Contract size and small firm competition in public procurement
The European Commission acknowledges that SMEs are underrepresented when it comes to
bidding for and being awarded public procurement contracts. Splitting the procurement into multiple
contracts of limited scope, which is referred to as a split award, is expected to induce SMEs’
likelihood of participation and winning (European Commission, 2011b; 2012). In this paper, I evaluate
the importance of contract size and the number of contracts in the procurement on SME participation
and winning.
The potential of split awards to induce SME participation and increase the probability of winning
the contract has, to my knowledge, not been studied empirically before. Previous studies on split
awards have mainly focused on assessing the effect on auction clearing price in highly complex and
often incomplete procurement projects with learning effects and diseconomies of scale (see, for
instance Lyon, 2006). The current procurement segment of internal cleaning service contracts is
associated with a relatively non-complex and labor intensive production technology and is not likely to
exhibit any substantial learning effects over time (Hyytinen et al., 2015).
This paper contributes to the literature on procurement programs that seek to encourage entry and
winning by disadvantaged potential bidders. Examples of such policies include bid preference
11
programs and set-asides (Milgrom, 2004). A bid preference program can involve giving disadvantaged
bidders a price preference in the supplier selection process (see, for example, McAfee and McMillan,
1989; Marion, 2007; Krasnokutskaya and Seim, 2011). A set-aside policy is implemented by setting
aside a fraction of contracts for targeted firms, and a bidder is typically not eligible to win more than
one contract (Milgrom, 2004; De Silva et al., 2012). Results from the empirical literature indicate that
bid preference programs increase participation by the favored bidder category of, for example, small
firms and their probability of winning the contract at the expense of decreased participation and award
rate for the non-favored category, in this case large firms (Marion, 2007; Krasnokutskaya and Seim,
2011).
A potentially limiting effect of split awards on SME participation and winning is the lack of
restrictions on the number of contracts an efficient supplier can be awarded. Hence, the procurement
policy enables the bidders to internalize expected economies of scale, or synergy effects, in their
stand-alone price bids across contracts within the procurement. This may offset, partially or in whole,
the ambition set out by the European Commission to support SMEs through splitting the procurement
over multiple contracts.
The bidding firms in the data are categorized into small, medium, and large firms based on their
number of employees. The effect of procurement design on the outcome variables of interest is
analyzed using cross-sectional variation in contract size and the number of contracts in the
procurements under study. Results from 331 procurements comprising 634 contracts confirm
substantial heterogeneity in participation rates and award probability across firm size categories
related to contract size and number of contracts. Linear probability model estimates on the potential
bidder’s entry decision indicate that large firms to a greater extent self-select into large contracts and
procurements with multiple contracts. Conditional upon bidding, the award rate for small bidders is
not affected by contract size. In contrast, medium-sized bidders are more successful when bidding for
smaller contracts relative to large bidders. The analysis also indicates that SMEs’ award rate is
positively correlated with the number of contracts in the procurement. The results in this context thus
support the practice used within the EU of splitting the procurement into multiple contracts in order to
provide business opportunities for SMEs.
12
References
Albano, G. L., & Sparro, M. (2010). Flexible strategies for centralized public procurement. Review of
Economics and Institutions, 1(2).
Arvidsson, A., & Stage, J. (2012). Technology-neutral green procurement in practice–an example
from Swedish waste management. Waste Management & Research, 30(5), 519-523.
Asker, J., & Cantillon, E. (2008). Properties of scoring auctions. The Rand Journal of
Economics, 39(1), 69-85.
Asker, J., & Cantillon, E. (2010). Procurement when price and quality matter. The Rand journal of
economics, 41(1), 1-34.
Baumol, W. J., & Oates, W. E. (1971). The use of standards and prices for protection of the
environment. The Swedish Journal of Economics, 42-54.
Bergman, M. A., & Lundberg, S. (2013). Tender evaluation and supplier selection methods in public
procurement. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 19(2), 73-83.
Bolton, P. (2008). Protecting the environment through public procurement: the case of South Africa.
Natural Resource Forum, 32(1), 1-10.
Christoffersen, H., Paldam, M., & Würtz, A. H. (2007). Public versus private production and
economies of scale. Public Choice, 130(3-4), 311-328.
De Silva, D. G., Dunne, T., Kosmopoulou, G., & Lamarche, C. (2012). Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise goals in government procurement contracting: an analysis of bidding behavior and
costs. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 30(4), 377-388.
De Silva, D. G., Jeitschko, T. D., & Kosmopoulou, G. (2009). Entry and bidding in common and
private value auctions with an unknown number of rivals. Review of Industrial Organization, 35(1-2),
73-93.
Edler, J., & Georghiou, L. (2007). Public procurement and innovation—Resurrecting the demand
side. Research policy, 36(7), 949-963.
Environmental Protection Acency (EPA). (1991). Environmental Fact Sheet: EPA Guideline for
Purchasing Building Insulation Containing Recovered Materials. EPA/530-SW-91-044. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1990). Procurement Guidelines for Government Agencies.
EPA/530-SW-91-011. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
European Commission. (2008a). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the
sustainable consumption and production and sustainable industrial policy action plan. COM(2008)
397/3, Brussels.
European Commission. (2008b). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Public
procurement for a better environment. COM(2008) 400, Brussels
European Commission. (2011a). Buying Green! A handbook on Green Public Procurement. 2nd
Edition, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission. (2011b). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Review
of the Small Business Act for Europe. COM(2011) 0078, Brussels.
European Commission. (2012). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
13
Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan Reigniting the Entrepreneurial Spirit in Europe. COM(2012) 0795,
Brussels.
Fischer, E. A. (2010). Green Procurement: Overview and Issues for Congress. CRS Report for
Congress, Congressional Research Service.
Geng, Y., & Doberstein, B. (2008). Greening government procurement in developing countries:
Building capacity in China. Journal of environmental management, 88(4), 932-938.
Hanley, N., Shogren, J. F., & White, B. (2007). Environmental economics: in theory and practice.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harsanyi, J. C. (1967). Games with Incomplete Information Played by Bayesian Players. Management
Science, 14(3), 159-182.
Heyes, A. (2009). Is environmental regulation bad for competition? A survey. Journal of Regulatory
Economics, 36(1), 1-28.
Ho, L. W., Dickinson, N. M., & Chan, G. (2010). Green Procurement in the Asian Public Sector and
the Hong Kong Private Sector. Natural Resource Forum, 34(1), 24-38.
Hyytinen, A., Lundberg, S., & Toivanen, O. (2015). Design of public procurement auctions: Evidence
from cleaning contracts. Available at SSRN 2562840.
Jofre-Bonet, M., & Pesendorfer, M. (2000). Bidding behavior in a repeated procurement auction: A
summary. European Economic Review, 44(4), 1006-1020.
Jofre‐Bonet, M., & Pesendorfer,
game. Econometrica, 71(5), 1443-1489.
M.
(2003).
Estimation
of
a
dynamic
auction
Kagel, J. H., & Levin, D. (1986). The winner's curse and public information in common value
auctions. The American Economic Review, 894-920.
Krasnokutskaya, E., & Seim, K. (2011). Bid preference programs and participation in highway
procurement auctions. The American Economic Review, 101(6), 2653-2686.
Levin, D., & Smith, J. L. (1994). Equilibrium in auctions with entry. The American Economic Review,
585-599.
Li, T., & Zheng, X. (2009). Entry and competition effects in first-price auctions: theory and evidence
from procurement auctions. The Review of Economic Studies, 76(4), 1397-1429.
Li, T., Perrigne, I., & Vuong, Q. (2002). Structural estimation of the affiliated private value auction
model. RAND Journal of Economics, 171-193.
Lundberg, S., & Marklund, P. O. (2011). The pivotal nature of award methods in green public
procurement. Environmental Economics, 2(3), 61-70.
Lundberg, S., & Marklund, P. O. (2013). Green public procurement as an environmental policy
instrument: cost effectiveness. Environmental Economics, 4, 75-83.
Lyon, T. P. (2006). Does dual sourcing lower procurement costs? The Journal of Industrial
Economics, 54(2), 223-252.
Marion, J. (2007). Are bid preferences benign? The effect of small business subsidies in highway
procurement auctions. Journal of Public Economics, 91(7), 1591-1624.
Marron, D. B. (1997). Buying green: Government procurement as an instrument of environmental
policy. Public Finance Review, 25(3), 285-305.
Marron, D. B. (2003). Greener Public Purchasing as an Environmental Policy Instrument. OECD
Journal on Budgeting, 3(4), 71-102.
McAfee, R. P., & McMillan, J. (1989). Government procurement and international trade. Journal of
international economics, 26(3), 291-308.
14
McCrudden, C. (2004). Using Public Procurement to Achieve Social Outcomes. Natural Resources
Forum, 28(4), 257-267.
McGuire, R. A., Ohsfeldt, R. L., & Van Cott, T. N. (1987). The determinants of the choice between
public and private production of a publicly funded service. Public Choice, 54(3), 211-230.
Menezes, F. M., & Monteiro, P. K. (2005). An introduction to auction theory. Oxford University
Press.
Milgrom, P. R. (2004). Putting auction theory to work. Cambridge University Press.
Palmujoki, A., Parikka‐Alhola, K., & Ekroos, A. (2010). Green public procurement: analysis on the
use of environmental criteria in contracts. Review of European Community & International
Environmental Law, 19(2), 250-262.
Parikka-Alhola, K. (2008). Promoting environmentally sound furniture by green public
procurement. Ecological Economics, 68(1), 472-485.
Qiao, Y., & Wang, C. (2011). Issues and Challenges in Implementing China’s Green Public
Procurement Program. Journal of Environmental Protection, 2(8), 1034-1045.
Samuelson, W. F. (1985). Competitive bidding with entry costs. Economics Letters, 17(1), 53-57.
Swanson, M., Weissman, A., Davis, G., Socolof, M. L., & Davis, K. (2005). Developing priorities for
greener state government purchasing: a California case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(7),
669-677.
Tarantini, M., Loprieno, A. D., & Porta, P. L. (2011). A life cycle approach to Green Public
Procurement of building materials and elements: A case study on windows. Energy, 36(5), 2473-2482.
Testa, F., Iraldo, F., Frey, M., & Daddi, T. (2012). What factors influence the uptake of GPP (green
public procurement) practices? New evidence from an Italian survey. Ecological Economics, 82, 8896.
Tietenberg, T. H. (1990). Economic instruments for environmental regulation. Oxford Review of
Economic Policy, 17-33.
Tukker, A., Emmert, S., Charter, M., Vezzoli, C., Sto, E., Munch-Andersen, M., Geerken, T.,
Tischner, U., & Lahlou, S. (2008). Fostering Change to Sustainable Consumption and Production: An
Evidence Based View. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(11), 1218-1225.
Vickrey, W. (1961). Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. The Journal of
Finance, 16(1), 8-37.
Walker, H., & Brammer, S. (2009). Sustainable procurement in the United Kingdom public
sector. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 14(2), 128-137.
Wan, Z., & Beil, D. R. (2009). RFQ auctions with supplier qualification screening. Operations
Research, 57(4), 934-949.
15